how can anyone support Trotsky?

[gla22]

how can anyone support Trotsky after the shit he pulled in the Ukraine while betraying the revolution and Makhno.

[Yehuda Stern]

I support Trotsky exactly because he did all he had to do to save the revolution from the sabotage of the right-wing of Anarchism. What Makhno set up in the Ukraine was a Stalinist regime years before Stalin. Like a friend of mine once said on another Anarchist hangup: "the real heroes of Kronstadt are Lenin and Trotsky."

[Bilan]

I support Trotsky exactly because he did all he had to do to save the revolution from the sabotage of the right-wing of Anarchism. What Makhno set up in the Ukraine was a Stalinist regime years before Stalin. Like a friend of mine once said on another Anarchist hangup: "the real heroes of Kronstadt are Lenin and Trotsky."

What a crock of shit.
You know nothing of Makhno, nor history, nor anarchism.
What a fucking surprise.

[Qwerty489]

What a crock of shit.
You know nothing of Makhno, nor history, nor anarchism.
What a fucking surprise.
Makhno was a pro-kulak fascist in the Ukrainian far-right, and his men were thugs and rapists.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Haven't you been at revleft to know by now that just because somebody calls themselves "Trotskyist" or "Maoist", "Stalinist", etc., that doesn't mean they must hero worship that individual?

No one person in infallible; no one person has all the answers, and no one person is without fault.

What being a "Trotskyist" means is that you support his ideas; not exclusively and not entirely, but for the most part; you support his theory.

Personally I don't mind associating myself as a Trotskyist because I like the theories and support the ideas of the Fourth International, Permanent Revolution, etc (if your opinion differs, so be it.) What Trotsky actually did is of little importance; I look not to follow in his footsteps, but to incorporate his ideas into the modern world.

Are goal when researching history isn't to choose sides; it is to find what worked, what didn't work, why, and how we can incorporate that into our present political goals.

Just a bit of advice to anybody who is here for hero worshiping; slow down, read posts (even if you disagree with them), stay away from history until you can look at it objectively. I also suggest not posting much for while except to ask specific questions about what you don't understand.

I started as a Che kiddie, but after I learned to shut up and listen, I learned that hero worship can be counter productive.

[BobKKKindle$]

how can anyone support Trotsky after the shit he pulled in the Ukraine while betraying the revolution and Makhno.

Trotsky clearly committed mistakes in his position as commander of the Red Army - but this is also true of every other historical figure, including those individuals who are admired by the Anarchist movement, and to totally reject the theoretical contributions of Trotsky on the basis of some mistakes is indicative of historical idealism, and a failure to understand the difficult conditions of the civil war. The position you uphold also suggests that you are unaware of, or have chosen to ignore, the events which occurred in the area subject to anarchist control. Many peasants (including the wealthy sections of the peasantry, which were also part of Makhno's army) took advantage of the absence of state power, and committed pogroms against the local jewish community.

[RHIZOMES]

from the sabotage of the right-wing of Anarchism.

:lol::lol::lol:

I don't like anarchism either, but jeez...

[Vendetta]

Makhno was a pro-kulak fascist in the Ukrainian far-right, and his men were thugs and rapists.

How, exactly?

[Red October]

I support Trotsky exactly because he did all he had to do to save the revolution from the sabotage of the right-wing of Anarchism. What Makhno set up in the Ukraine was a Stalinist regime years before Stalin.

Do you ever get tired of pulling stupid shit out of your ass? Makhno spent his life fighting for libertarian communism, whether you like anarchism or not, don't say dumb stuff like he was a stalinist.

@Arizona Bay:

Was the Makhnovist Movement part of the HU? :lol:

[OI OI OI]

Beginning in the middle of 1918, the cruel blows of the Civil War drove a

wedge between city and country. The peasantry moved in the direction of

conservatism. They had gained everything that they wanted out of the

revolution and were ready to defend their new property from both the Left

and the Right. The undeveloped Russian villages, each operating in the

manner of subsistence economy, could survive without cities. The prevailing

mood among peasantry was that the cities were good for nothing more

than select industrial goods, so long as the prices were low; and that,

apart from that, the cities were only a source of trouble – from the

bureaucracy, army conscription, taxation and grain levies. This grossly

unbalanced outlook was similar to those of later peasant movements in the

“Third World”, for example that of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. However,

whereas the peasant movements of the last several decades have

expressed themselves through Maoist or Guevaraist ideas, the Russian

peasantry in the period of the Russian Civil War instead adopted anarchist

slogans. But this process was gradual. It started with the peasantry’s

support of the Social Revolutionary party, which was the party of the

Russian populists known as the “Narodniks”. This party was petty-

bourgeois, and it initially appealed to the peasant communities by

advocating a uniquely “Russian Socialism” that emphasized the role of the

peasantry – not the working class – as being central to the revolutionary

process.

In 1918, the Social Revolutionary Party split into right and left wings, and in

the process suffered massive losses of support. The SR Party’s role as a

leader of the peasantry was slowly replaced by anarchist groupings. Some

of these groups were extremely sectarian and anti-Bolshevik, one example

being that of the notorious “Nabat” group. This particular group was

responsible for organizing bloody terrorist actions against the Bolshevik

Party Centre in Moscow in 1919. Later, their ideology would be expressed

through the Makhno movement.

While the Russian villages had no need to depend upon the cities, the

Russian industrial centres depended upon the villages’ agricultural products

for sustenance and survival. The collapse of the infrastructure which began

in 1915 reached a peak in 1918. Numerous crises including bosses’

lock-outs, industrial sabotage, the Civil War, the collapse of transportation

and mass hunger in the cities forced the Bolsheviks to implement the policy

of “War Communism”. An important feature of this policy was the

expropriation of the food surpluses of the villages in order to feed the

workers in the cities. This practice was called “Prodrazverstka”.

The peasantry did not welcome this step. When the representatives of the

Soviet government came to the countryside to collect food, they were

seen as bandits who were stealing the peasantry’s property. Quite often

there were cases of these representatives (called “prodotriadi”) being

brutally murdered. Also, there were many cases of prodzrazverstka

provoking the peasantry to rebellion against the Bolsheviks.

During the civil war, the petty-bourgeoisie (the peasantry) was pressed

from both sides, between the working class and the forces of reaction.

Consequently, in some areas the petty-bourgeois peasantry attempted to

play an independent role by manoeuvring between the Bolsheviks and their

counter-revolutionary enemies. Tendencies towards these sorts of actions

were especially strong in Siberia and the Ukraine – both areas being less

developed economically and industrially, and consequently having a strong

and rich peasant class. For a time, these forces allied with the Bolsheviks,

as the White Army stood for the restoration of the old landowner system,

which was absolutely unacceptable for the mass of the peasantry.

Of all the peasant movements which sought to play the middle-ground, the

most famous was that led by Makhno in the Ukraine from 1918 to 1921.

This military force was a typical peasant army, unchanged from the old

Medieval-era structure – possessing both the strengths and weaknesses of

that form. Makhno’s militia began as a guerrilla force formed when Germany

occupied the Ukraine in 1918. These guerrillas excelled in their own sphere

of action, but couldn’t stand firm against an extended clash with a regular

army. While these guerrillas operated in their home areas, they could

expect help from locals. But, when fighting away from their home villages,

they lived by banditry and as a result lost support from most people.

Makhno led a peasant movement, and so never had a strong base of

support in any of the cities. Most of the workers who lived in areas of the

Ukraine under Makhno’s control sided either with the Bolsheviks or the

Mensheviks. The following examples illustrate the attitude that Makhno had

towards the working class. When railway and telegraph workers from the

Ekaterinoslav-Sinelnikovo line were still suffering after a long period of

starvation under Denikin’s occupation, they asked Makhno to pay them for

their work. He responded with, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you,

we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those

who need your railways and telegraphs.” In a separate incident, he told the

workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s

movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armoured car, I will take

this armoured car for free and pay nothing.”

With clashes between peasants and landlords on the one hand, and clashes

between peasants and workers on the other, Makhno was pressed to

institute policies that were far from “libertarian”. The real conditions of life

for the peasants of the Ukraine from 1919-1921 were cruel and repressive.

The cities in Makhno’s territories were not ruled by Soviets. Instead, they

were ruled by mayors drawn from Makhno’s military forces. Makhno’s

movement was severely centralized, with the leadership in the RevCom

deciding everything. Makhno even established a police-security organization

(!) led by Leo Zadov (Zinkovsky), a former worker-anarchist who was to

become notorious for his brutality. Incidentally, in the early 1920s Zadov

returned to the USSR – to join the GPU! He was rewarded for his services

with his own execution in 1937. In the Ukraine, we see clearly that the

anarchists were committing the same crimes that they accused the

Bolsheviks of.

In September of 1920, Ivanov V. (representative of the Southern Front

Revolutionary Soviet) visited Makhno. He later wrote this description of

Makhno’s camp: “The regime is brutal, the discipline is hard as steel, rebels

are beaten on the face for any small breach, no elections to the general

command staff, all commanders up to company commander are appointed

by Makhno and the Anarchist Revolutionary War Council, Revolutionary

Military Soviet (Revvoensovet) became an irreplaceable, uncontrollable and

non-elected institution. Under the revolutionary military council there is a

‘special section’ that deals with disobediences secretly and without mercy.”

In order to acquire supplies and equipment, Makhno would sometimes ally

himself with the Red Army. However, he always refused to accept the Red

Army’s discipline and order. In order to get food, Makhno’s forces robbed

not only villages under their control but also Red Army convoys. This

caused many conflicts. Finally, in 1921, actions like these played a part in

the decisive split between Makhno and the Soviet State. It was at this time

that Makhno and his anarchist advisors lost support from the peasants as a

result of the New Economic Policy of the Bolsheviks, which replaced

prodrazverstka with a bread tax. After a short period of battles, Makhno’s

militia was crushed. Nestor Makhno himself escaped to Romania, while the

majority of his fighters capitulated and received an amnesty.

[Comrade Rage]

Makhno was a pro-kulak fascist in the Ukrainian far-right, and his men were thugs and rapists.

You're right. I'm no fan of the goat-pig Trotsky, but he did what had to be done.

[gla22]

Trotsky also pulled shit in krondstant, that is even more undefendable. The revolution betrayed? Trotsky is right down there with Stalin.

[Labor Shall Rule]

In my opinion, Makhno shouldn't of been suppressed. I agree with GLA, Kronstadt should of stayed up in arms.

Even though the British navy and Finnish military was within (literal) walking distance of Petrograd, or that the French and Turks could of simply marched into the eastern Ukraine corridor (if the Bolsheviks weren't fighting Denikin they probably would of) if Makhno was left alone, they should of been allowed to press their 'demands' by killing Communists or encourage desertion within the Red Army.

[Qwerty489]

Trotsky also pulled shit in krondstant, that is even more undefendable. The revolution betrayed? Trotsky is right down there with Stalin.
gtfo liberal kiddie, go cry about Stalin to your bourgeois parents

[Saorsa]

gtfo liberal kiddie, go cry about Stalin to your bourgeois parents

LOL pwnd. :lol:

[Andres Marcos]

Trotsky clearly committed mistakes in his position as commander of the Red Army - but this is also true of every other historical figure, including those individuals who are admired by the Anarchist movement, and to totally reject the theoretical contributions of Trotsky on the basis of some mistakes is indicative of historical idealism, and a failure to understand the difficult conditions of the civil war. The position you uphold also suggests that you are unaware of, or have chosen to ignore, the events which occurred in the area subject to anarchist control. Many peasants (including the wealthy sections of the peasantry, which were also part of Makhno's army) took advantage of the absence of state power, and committed pogroms against the local jewish community.

ohhh god...Makhnovites did not commit pogroms that is a bunch of crap written in the Black Book of Communism.


how can anyone support Trotsky after the shit he pulled in the Ukraine while betraying the revolution and Makhno.You have got to be kidding me, that lumpen Makhno was an enemy of the socialist state he and his band of lumpen assassins were hardly a bunch of fucking angels he

" ... fought ... the Red Army without respite".

(Daniel & Gabriel Cohn-Bendit: 'Obsolete Communism: The Left-wing Alternative'; London; 1968; p. 220).


until
" . . . the summer of 1921, when it was finally crushed by the Red Army". ((Daniel & Gabriel Cohn-Bendit: ibid.; p.220).


and it serves him right. The anarchists conveniently leave out their lumpen hero Makhno was the first to revolt and commit acts of terrorism against the workers in the SU, murdered Soviet soldiers by execution and torture(which was even allowed in the Makhnovite constitution!), and actively included ALL the peasentry in his Warlord regime(which includes the rural capitalists who were free to exploit the rural peasentry)

The Manifesto of the Insurrectional Makhnovite Army declared that the aim of the movement was the abolition of the Soviet state:
"Only by overthowing all governments, every representative of authority, by destroying all political, economic and authoritarian lies, wherever they are found, by destroying the state, . . . can we . . . advance. . . towards socialism"., (Manifesto of Insurrectional Makhnovite Army, in: Daniel & Gabriel Cohn-Bendit: ibid.; p. 222).


Funny how the anarchists rush to the defense of Makhno though once someoen mentions pogroms, as it is a proven lie found only in the Black Book of Communism, funny though how they occasionally use that book which lies about Makhno to criticize Stalin and Lenin though....




I support Trotsky exactly because he did all he had to do to save the revolution from the sabotage of the right-wing of Anarchism. What Makhno set up in the Ukraine was a Stalinist regime years before Stalin.You really are a simpleton, it is no surprise why you Trotskyites are possibly the most degenerate groups out there, you seem to always want to call something "Stalinist" even your shitty papers try to justify their idiotic labels by calling the revisionist Tito "a Stalinist against Stalin" instead of using concrete labels you always use vague ones, and just shows how mechanical you people are for you there are only 2 types of ideologies on the left: Trotskyites and Stalinists, "if its not A therefore it must be B!!!"

[Colonello Buendia]

Makhno was a pro-kulak fascist in the Ukrainian far-right, and his men were thugs and rapists.
I recall seeing the same thing on an Italian fascist poster reffering to communism

[Colonello Buendia]

I'm not a fan of Trotsky, but nor do I agree with Makhno, his men gained a reputation for commiting atrocities(e.g. torturing prisoners) and in my eyes russia wasn't ready for that sort of social system. there were still to many people in a capitalistic mindset at the time. as for Trotsky as a whole, very few people here treat him like a god, most of the trosts agree with his ideas. when talking about Krondstadt, the sailors simply rebelled because they saw a good revolution going to pot, with a return of managerial staff and small time capitalist ventures. Trotsky and the Red Army went after the defenders of the true revolutionary spirit because his and Lenins motives had clearly turned away from the people.


P.S. Qwerty489, back off and and calm down, revleft has no place for idol worshipping twats with big mouths.

[RedAnarchist]

gtfo liberal kiddie, go cry about Stalin to your bourgeois parents

Isn't he supposed to be rebelling against his parents? Oh no, wait, thats just you.

[RedAnarchist]

P.S. Qwerty489, back off and and calm down, revleft has no place for idol worshipping twats with big mouths.

He's a Kromando sockpuppet, so we have no place for him anyway.

[gla22]

gtfo liberal kiddie, go cry about Stalin to your bourgeois parents

Are you going to justify Trotsky's actions or remain an ass?

[Colonello Buendia]

He's a Kromando sockpuppet, so we have no place for him anyway.
fair enough, I assume he's gonna get banned then?

[OI OI OI]

It's a pity that some members won't read my post.gla22 please take some time. It will help you understand better .

[RedAnarchist]

fair enough, I assume he's gonna get banned then?

Probably.

[Tower of Bebel]

"... hands off Trotsky! He still belongs to the working class."

It is clear that Trotsky devoted his life to the internationalist revolution. Yet depending on the historical context, the ideology that is criticizing him and the (false) interpretations made by others you might concider some of his views and actions to be simply wrong. But this type of deduction does not prove that he would have betrayed the revolution.


It's a pity that some members won't read my post.gla22 please take some time. It will help you understand better.
I did. But make is more interesting to read.

It's obvious that most readers are not interested in long texts if they have no clue of what it's all about.

[darktidus]

LOL pwnd. :lol:

Well done.


Regardless, I agree that its a very totalitarian way of thinking that means that one has to respect and admire all the actions of one person if they subscribe to that person's basic ideology.

Nonetheless, Trotsky was responsible for inexcusable actions, the two most prominent being the slaughter at Kronstadt and the destruction of the Ukrainian revolution. It seems to me these errors are so great as to call into question the entire ideology he represented - they're not small, tactical mistakes, but rather, seem to be reflective of a pervasive, authoritarian, and definitely anti-revolutionary nature.

[gla22]

It's a pity that some members won't read my post.gla22 please take some time. It will help you understand better .

Yeah, i read your post. it explains the makhno situation better and i had only heard the anarchist side on that. But what about krondstandt?

[Yehuda Stern]

To all the Anarchists offended by my comments: Makhno wasn't Stalinist because he adhered to Stalin, and I'm not saying he was a Stalinist per se. But his regime of bureaucratic oppression by a peasant movement against the workers was very reminiscent of Stalin. If Makhno was such a revolutionist, one might ask why the very class conscious workers went along with the Bolsheviks in their putting down of the tyrant instead of supporting him.


I don't like anarchism either, but jeez...

Did the right-wing of the Anarchist movement not sabotage the revolution? I thought that even a Stalinist would recognize that.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

To all the Anarchists offended by my comments: Makhno wasn't Stalinist because he adhered to Stalin, and I'm not saying he was a Stalinist per se. But his regime of bureaucratic oppression by a peasant movement against the workers was very reminiscent of Stalin. If Makhno was such a revolutionist, one might ask why the very class conscious workers went along with the Bolsheviks in their putting down of the tyrant instead of supporting him.



Did the right-wing of the Anarchist movement not sabotage the revolution? I thought that even a Stalinist would recognize that.

Ehh, methinks it was Trotsky who helped eliminate most of the revolution, with the conscription, and the banning of other political groups, and the elimination of the free soviets.

Mahkno had pretty good popular support, and didn't have much time to enact any sort of "bureaucratic regime" as the RIAU was constantly on the move and was attacked on all 4 sides.

[rebelworker]

As to your posts about the class conscious workers supporting the repression of the Makhnovists, they didnt.

The Red army found it nearly imposssible to get locals to fight the Anarchists in the ukrain and mostly had to rely on bringing in troops from distant parts of the country that didnt know what was going on locally or just as often captured Polish troops.

Even the Bolshevik secret police could no longer get Ukranian volenteers to do their dirty work.

Makhno made alot of errors, and was somewhat limited by his life experience, but he was fro a time an industrial worker and the limited examples of "anti workersism" are taken out of context.

The Ukrain issue is huge, so i will move on to the topic at hand.

Trotsky.

As someone who believes in a democratic workers revolution and workers self management as a cornerstone of communism i obviously must reject the actions of Trotsky.

Leave the Ukrain and Kronstant aside. Trotsky was anti workers revolution.
His vision of social change was extreemly top down and clearly influneced by his petty burgeoise upbringing.

He had no problems with putting down local democratic bodies of workers control and did so on numerous occasions.

He had total disregard for the role of trade unions(though a healthy critique is needed they are still important).

He had total faith in one man management of industry, at the expense of workers control, and often went beyond that to argue for the "militarisation of labour".
Like he did with the Army, he wanted to install a regeim of top down management. held in place by military discipline, more often than not with old burgeoise leaders at the reigns.

He, and his supporters today, argue that these things are nessesary for the expediencey of political survival (of the Bolshevik party rule), and one might come to this conclusion coming from a top down managerial mind set.

Sadly these people are no friend of the average worker, and will not lead to communism and workers democracy, but yet another new boss, same as the old boss but now wearing a shiny red star, regiem.

For anyone who has spent most of their lives on the shop floor, or done any serrious workplace organising, workers power is not something that can be turned on and off at will.

It must be built, it must be fought for, and it comes through struggle.
Only a bottom up aproach to revolution will ever lead to communism.
Trotsky did not know this because he did not come from the working class (he and most of the Bolshevik leadership and burocracy).

Top down revolution has been given ample time to give birth to communism, it cannot work because the movement has to come from the bottom if true workers power is to prevail.

History has shown this almost exhaustivly.
Lets not beat a dead horse, new paths are needed.

[Dros]

When did gla22 go from a right deviationist position to an ultra-left deviationist position?
:lol::lol::lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

His vision of social change was extreemly top down and clearly influneced by his petty burgeoise upbringing.

But of course anarchists are exempt from this because their petty-bourgeoisie upbringing (Kropotkin, Bakunin etc.) only strengthens their faith in the working-class.

[nuisance]

But of course anarchists are exempt from this because their petty-bourgeoisie upbringing (Kropotkin, Bakunin etc.) only strengthens their faith in the working-class.
Unfortunatly for your statement anarchism takes its ideological standpoint from a range of theorists, petit bourgeois and not.

[Yehuda Stern]

Ehh, methinks it was Trotsky who helped eliminate most of the revolution, with the conscription, and the banning of other political groups, and the elimination of the free soviets.

In the course of the revolution, some groups, like the right wing of the Anarchists and the SRs (and later the left SRs as well) have proved that they are incapable of coexisting with the proletarian dictatorship. When they tried to aid the counterrevolution in its campaign against the Bolsheviks, they were dealt with accordingly.

As for Rebel Worker's many claims, especially that the advanced workers (not peasants) supported Makhno, I'll have to see some sources. As far as I'm concerned, those are just Anarchist myths.

[Led Zeppelin]

Unfortunatly for your statement anarchism takes its ideological standpoint from a range of theorists, petit bourgeois and not.

...and the same applies for Marxism, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Anyway, I don't share the belief that a certain class ubringing prevents a person from becoming a class-conscious proletarian in later life, it's ahistorical and deterministic as I just proved.

[rebelworker]

But of course anarchists are exempt from this because their petty-bourgeoisie upbringing (Kropotkin, Bakunin etc.) only strengthens their faith in the working-class.

Neither were petty burgoise!

They were aristocrats:laugh:

I think Bakunin clearly had delusions about the need for a secret society and was prone to jump from insurrection to insurrection (at least he got his hands dirty).

Kropotkin spent his life as a good intellectual, I think some of his theory is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about his ideas around evolution and cooperation in Nature, but he was hardly a proletarian revolutionary...

If you think Trotsky was, well thats just sad, a just goes to illustrate the difference I have with your politics.

I dont think one can be born petty burgoise, burgoise or Aristocratic and just one day "become" a proletarian revolutionary.

To beleive so is dellusional. One must experience working class exsistance for many years to begin to truly take the needs of the class into consideration.

I have met all sorts of revolutionaries who can pack "working class" or "proletariate" 15 times into a sentence, but at the end of the day their thinking about and behavior towards working people was paternalistsic or dismissive at worst, and only half a connection at best.

This goes for anarchists and Bolsheviks, I think there are some anarchists who have a very confused idea about what revolutionary change is all about.

I stand by my above argument and analysis.

[rebelworker]

As for Rebel Worker's many claims, especially that the advanced workers (not peasants) supported Makhno, I'll have to see some sources. As far as I'm concerned, those are just Anarchist myths.


I never said all the advanced industrial workers were with Makhno, some were, many were not.

It is true however that many if not most Bolshevik sympathisers from the Ukrain where not willing to shoot their revolutionary bretheren in the back as Trotsky would like.

Thus as the war went on The repression was handed to units from outside the area who were more suseptable to high up Party Lies.

Trotsky had to have the original commander of Red Units in the Ukraine replaced because after spending time working with and in the camp of the Makhnoivsts (he was sent their to report on their makeup and intentions) he found Makhno and the Black Army to be reliable revolutionary comrades.

After hearing this Trotsky flew of the handle and had the man replaced by a former Tsarist officer....

For sources you can check out "Anarchy's Cossack: The struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukrain 1917-1921" by Alexandre Skirda, it relies very heavily on recently declassified Soviet document, often letters between involved Bolshevik personalities or official Soviet files.

[Led Zeppelin]

I dont think one can be born petty burgoise, burgoise or Aristocratic and just one day "become" a proletarian revolutionary.

But you miss the fact that Lenin, Trotsky, Marx etc. all broke with the class-background of their parents rather quickly.

In the case of Trotsky, it was when he was around 17 or 18.

That is beside the point though, because you're still wrong in my opinion. As I said, the view that being a worker or proletarian automatically makes you more prone to being class-conscious at all times doesn't correspond to the facts, it's deterministic and ahistorical.

For example, if what you say is true, any industrial worker would be "more class-conscious" than Marx was, because he came from a more privileged background...but that's absurd.

Consciousness is not formed directly and solely through class relations, the majority of the proletariat for example is bourgeoisified at its inception because it is brought into existence in a capitalist society, in which the ruling ideas reflect that of the ruling class.

When looking at individuals, it is just as likely for any worker to become class-conscious as it is for a college professor or a person brought up in a petty-bourgeois background.

When looking at classes in general though, it is only possible for the working-class to become revolutionary (and it is no longer so for the petty-bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie) given the relation of that class to the means of production in a capitalist nation.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

In the course of the revolution, some groups, like the right wing of the Anarchists and the SRs (and later the left SRs as well) have proved that they are incapable of coexisting with the proletarian dictatorship. When they tried to aid the counterrevolution in its campaign against the Bolsheviks, they were dealt with accordingly.

As for Rebel Worker's many claims, especially that the advanced workers (not peasants) supported Makhno, I'll have to see some sources. As far as I'm concerned, those are just Anarchist myths.

Jesus on a pogo stick, are you seriously claiming that there was a "right wing of anarchists"? Substantiate. Anarchists never aided in white counter revolution. I'm sure they fought the bolsheviks, but that was becuase the bolshies jailed and attacked them on a regular basis. They were actively pushing the revolution forward, against the bureaucratic and authoritarian direction in which it was going.

[gla22]

When did gla22 go from a right deviationist position to an ultra-left deviationist position?
:lol::lol::lol:
anarchist propaganda. I've done a bunch of reading and re-evaluation.

[rebelworker]

But you miss the fact that Lenin, Trotsky, Marx etc. all broke with the class-background of their parents rather quickly.

In the case of Trotsky, it was when he was around 17 or 18.

That is beside the point though, because you're still wrong in my opinion. As I said, the view that being a worker or proletarian automatically makes you more prone to being class-conscious at all times doesn't correspond to the facts, it's deterministic and ahistorical.

For example, if what you say is true, any industrial worker would be "more class-conscious" than Marx was, because he came from a more privileged background...but that's absurd.

Consciousness is not formed directly and solely through class relations, the majority of the proletariat for example is bourgeoisified at its inception because it is brought into existence in a capitalist society, in which the ruling ideas reflect that of the ruling class.

When looking at individuals, it is just as likely for any worker to become class-conscious as it is for a college professor or a person brought up in a petty-bourgeois background.

When looking at classes in general though, it is only possible for the working-class to become revolutionary (and it is no longer so for the petty-bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie) given the relation of that class to the means of production in a capitalist nation.

What Im saying is that class consciousness is more than just recognising that there are workers and bosses.
Working people have a class interest in resisting capitalism, Marx recognised this, but Im not sure he really understood it, or that most "proferssional revolutionaries" understand it either.

Class consciosness for a working class person needs to be developed, and people of all different backgrounds can get what the concept is about, but there are some pieces of the puzzel that are, or become very clear to working class people (and for the moment Im sort of using a three class analysis and excluding what some call the political or managerial class) and are overlooked by other people despite how revolutionary they think they are.

There is a very basic class relation of those who give and receive orders, that for me is essential to building true communism but this fact is often lost on people with a more top down view of change.

Its true that people of all backgrounds can figure things out and join "the right side" of the class struggle, but they are not working towards a real political and social revolution untill they come to terms with their role in a new society. That is a society of classless equils, not just a slight re shuffling of the deck.

My most basic criticism of the Bolshevik model is that it sought to replace the Tsarist regiem with a dictatorship of the party, in the hopes that this would buy them time to eventually wither away the state.

This cannot work, the revolution needed to be based and lead by the factory commities and other grass roots bodies. Even the Trade unions were better, but one by one the Bolshevik eliminated, from the bottom up, all the bodies of workers power untill all that was left was essentially a new burocratic class in the form of the Bolshevik party.

[Yehuda Stern]

It is true however that many if not most Bolshevik sympathisers from the Ukrain where not willing to shoot their revolutionary bretheren in the back as Trotsky would like.

It does not seem that way. The workers supported the suppression of Kronstadt, and I see no evidence that they opposed the oppression of Makhno. For good reason, too, as you will see below.


are you seriously claiming that there was a "right wing of anarchists"? Substantiate.

I'm not that great with the Anarchist movement at the time of the revolution. Serge, however, was definitely on the left wing of the Anarchist movement, as he supported the workers revolution against the white sabotage.

Now that I've looked up some information, I suppose I could mention Lev Chernyi and Fanya Baron as being some of the leaders of the right wing of Russian Anarchism. Trotsky commented on Baron's imprisonment: "We do not imprison the real anarchists, but criminals and bandits who cover themselves by claiming to be anarchists."


Anarchists never aided in white counter revolution.

Well, I could just say "Kronstadt," but then we'd just be going in circles, no?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It does not seem that way. The workers supported the suppression of Kronstadt, and I see no evidence that they opposed the oppression of Makhno. For good reason, too, as you will see below.

Rofl, as devrim noted in the Kronstadt debate, the whole of petrograd was on bloody strike.




I'm not that great with the Anarchist movement at the time of the revolution. Serge, however, was definitely on the left wing of the Anarchist movement, as he supported the workers revolution against the white sabotage.

Now that I've looked up some information, I suppose I could mention Lev Chernyi and Fanya Baron as being some of the leaders of the right wing of Russian Anarchism. Trotsky commented on Baron's imprisonment: "We do not imprison the real anarchists, but criminals and bandits who cover themselves by claiming to be anarchists."
You've got is backwards here. Victor Serge was a bit of dingbat. Prior to the bolshevik revolution he spent his time cavorting with the Bonnot gang, a bunch of asshats and crazies who claimed to be "anarchist" as they committed armed robberies, sometimes killing civilians in the process. Serge wasn't ever much of an anarchist, just stupid.

Both of the "right anarchist bandits" you mentioned are actually political prisoners, held without a trial at prison camps and then summarily executed by the Cheka. Trotsky said that nonsense in response to visiting syndicalists protesting the murder and imprisonment of their comrades. Of those "bandits" the Cheka released all but Baron, Baron's husband and Chernyi. Obviously they had narrowed it down to the "real" bandits, right? Of course they would have a trial for all to see the evil anarchist "banditry," right? Yet, no trial, just summary execution!

[OI OI OI]

As to your posts about the class conscious workers supporting the repression of the Makhnovists, they didnt.

The Red army found it nearly imposssible to get locals to fight the Anarchists in the ukrain and mostly had to rely on bringing in troops from distant parts of the country that didnt know what was going on locally or just as often captured Polish troops.


My first post explains that. Makhno was based on the peasants not the proletariat and in the place where he made his territory with the Makhnovists( !!!!!!!) there were 99 % peasants. A revolution needs to have the workers as a primary force and the peasants (petit bourgois) only play an auxiliary role in the revolution. Why did the peasants in Ukraine sided with Makhno? Was it because they were so amazed with the ideas of "anarchism"(?) or better to say Makhnovism? No! It was because of their natural social role as petty bourgeois and because of the material conditions for the revolution. They basicaly wanted to keep all their crops etc for themselves and not help the workers in the city by engaging in "unfair" fir them trade. If Ukraine kept that thing going the revolution would have been crushed in Russia from the invading imperialists because the workers would have starved int he cities. And starved men and women cannot fight. And then the victorius imperialists would have crushed Makhno also and his army of peasants(petit bourgeois). Thats the simple way of saying it . For more analysis read my first post here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-anyone-support-t83732/index.html?p=1191056#post1191056






Even the Bolshevik secret police could no longer get Ukranian volenteers to do their dirty work.

The Makhnovist secret police through the threat of torture could though. They got a lot of "volunteers"]
Some links about this claim are here along with some extracts:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2005/Makhno-839.html
His secret police tortured and murdered many communists.
his secret policemen were torturing prisoners
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/worldwidemovements/anarchisminrussia5.html
The least protest against this intolerable regime brought on the most brutal punishment without trial from the secret service established by Makhno and run by the two Zadov brothers, professional criminals capable of the vilest atrocities
A special department of the Revolutionary Military Council which deals secretly and ruthlessly with insubordinates.
but anyone who failed to report was ruthlessly dealt with by Makhno's secret police while rejecting all organs of government, they set up a secret police answerable to no one, which dealt without trial with every worker or peasant who was in Makhno's way, torturing, executing

http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml
Makhno created two secret police forces that carried out numerous acts of terror.82 After a battle in one village, they shot a villager suspected of treachery with no trial. They summarily executed many of their prisoners of war.84 Their secret police were tasked with getting rid of “opponents within or outwith [sic] the movement.”85 Their activities led to one anarchist Congress asking Makhno to explain his activities:

It has been reported to us that there exists in the army a counter-espionage service which engages in arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik Cheka. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported.86

http://www.marxists.de/russrev/serge/yearone.htm
the anarchist Makhno established two such forces with a horrific reputation in their territory, repressing all political parties as mercilessly as the Reds suppressed alt parties save their own



Makhno made alot of errors, and was somewhat limited by his life experience, but he was fro a time an industrial worker and the limited examples of "anti workersism" are taken out of context.

The Ukrain issue is huge, so i will move on to the topic at hand.

That's why he made a perry bourgeois revolution and almsot starved the workers in the cities.


Trotsky.

As someone who believes in a democratic workers revolution and workers self management as a cornerstone of communism i obviously must reject the actions of Trotsky.

Leave the Ukrain and Kronstant aside. Trotsky was anti workers revolution.
His vision of social change was extreemly top down and clearly influneced by his petty burgeoise upbringing.

It's funny how you talk about Trotsky's petty bourgeois upbringing while you support a petty bourgeois movement (Makhnovism), with a lot of dictatorial traits. Did you know that Makhno used to sign using the name "father" and that's how his "comrades" called him?
Trotsky along with the rest of the Bolsheviks had to ban factions and other parties a) Because of most of the other parties playing an open counter-revolutionary role and the right wing of the SR's tried to assasinate Lenin
b) Because of the objective conditions of civil war and the material conditions.
Also as LZ said , if that is the case we are free to criticize your anarcho-aristocrats just because of their upbringing. Also things about the top down make no sense for someone that has read some Trotsky.
I can accept that Trotsky was one of those who banned factions(under certain conditions of course) but Trotsky was the only one pushing for the un-banning of the factions and parties some years after the civil war, and NO not after he was exiled. So basicaly all what you are saying is non-sense.


He had no problems with putting down local democratic bodies of workers control and did so on numerous occasions.

He had total disregard for the role of trade unions(though a healthy critique is needed they are still important).


That was not Trotsky as I explained before. That was a collective decision of the Bolsheviks who expressed the majority of the Russian workers , for security reasons during the civil war. You should read how Makhno was an atocrat instead.

He had total faith in one man management of industry, at the expense of workers control, and often went beyond that to argue for the "militarisation of labour".
Like he did with the Army, he wanted to install a regeim of top down management. held in place by military discipline, more often than not with old burgeoise leaders at the reigns.

About the old bourgeoisie leaders as you call them that was again because 83% of the workers and peasants were illiterate so some bureaucratic tasks had to be done by Czarist bureaucrats and old bourgeoisie. But they were not leading bodies and did not have any influence on anything. About the militarization of labour that was because 21 armies and the whites were invading. Every worker should carry a gun during the civil war and the revolution. For the counter-revolutionaries and in case the bureaucrats betray the people.


He, and his supporters today, argue that these things are nessesary for the expediencey of political survival (of the Bolshevik party rule), and one might come to this conclusion coming from a top down managerial mind set.


No he won't. Everything depends on the objective conditions. Trots always stand for workers democracy and the control of the top by the bottom!


Sadly these people are no friend of the average worker, and will not lead to communism and workers democracy, but yet another new boss, same as the old boss but now wearing a shiny red star, regiem.

Sure . You are the friend of the workers though and Makhno who almsot starved them to death. The Makhnovist movement was a petty bourgeois movement , live with it.
And it does not have to be always a degenerated workers state. It always depends if the revolution is isolated, or if the country is backwards etc. It is not a fault of socialism.
I like how the anarchists claim to be friends of the workers when because of their idiocy in Spain they led to a massacre for the working class( Stalinists of course played their part too for that) and 40 years of dictatorship under Franco.
I also like how you are a member of NEFAC and as I remember in May Third some workers in the proltest started booeing you ! :rolleyes:


For anyone who has spent most of their lives on the shop floor, or done any serrious workplace organising, workers power is not something that can be turned on and off at will.

It must be built, it must be fought for, and it comes through struggle.
Only a bottom up aproach to revolution will ever lead to communism.

We agree. We have the same experiences and I agree with your second statement. Workers power is turned off by certain objective conditions .

Trotsky did not know this because he did not come from the working class (he and most of the Bolshevik leadership and burocracy).

Did the Makhnovists come fromt he working class or petty bourgeoisie? Your gonna drive me crazy!
Dont talk about the working class when your own movement is not based on it!!!!!!!!!
The Bolsheviks had far more influence in the workers with 250 000 members , mostly workers in 1917 !!!
Compare this to the influence of the anarchists and the Narodniks!


Top down revolution has been given ample time to give birth to communism, it cannot work because the movement has to come from the bottom if true workers power is to prevail.
So the Bolshevik revolution came from the top? Are you serious?
The Bolshevik revolution was a revolution of the workers and unfortunately degenerated due to the objective conditions(Russia was backwards, isolation etc) . And I emphasize how you talk about workers power and then you talk about Makhno and his peasants.


History has shown this almost exhaustivly.
Lets not beat a dead horse, new paths are needed.

We saw your path which is itself the horse which is the most dead of all.
The revolution of Ukraine was a petty bourgeois revolution and in Spain you failed because of your wrong methods, theory and tactics.
You have to study more about the nature of the past "socialist " countries and you will reach a beter conclusion!

[OI OI OI]

To gla22 about the Kronstand rebellion.

I will not tire you writting a whole theoretical passage of 2 pages explainning everything about Kronstand. I am sure others can do that better than me. I will just give you some trivia!

- You know who made a monument to honour the Kronstandt rebellion and when?
Don't get too tired thinking. It was Boris Yeltsin in 1994! I don't think that Boris was in favour of workers democracy as "expressed" by the insurrectionists!
spurces ftp://ftp.etext.org/pub/Politics/Spunk/texts/pubs/ma/sp000298.html
http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/rferl/2001/01-02-28.rferl.html

- I will remind you that the anarchist Paul Avritch himself said that "If the Kronstand tebellion laster a little bit longer it would encourage the counter-revolution to start again its attacks".
Source:
http://www.marxist.com/russian-revolution-colour-documentary-5.htm
[27]Paul Avrich, Kronstadt 1921, p.p. 126-27

-The political past of the presindent of the "revolutionary comitee" of Kronstand was originaly a "Bolshevik" which tried to go over to the whites when things went bad for the Bolsheviks.

- Paul Avritch (an anarchist !) found out that the insurectionists of Kronstand made some secret agreements with the counter revolutionary cadets.

- 435 000 Francs were raised by the French bourgeoisie to help the insurectionists of Kronstand!

-The stock markets of New York and PAris went up by alot when the news went there about the Kronstandt rebellion!

- A new York paper had the news about the Kronstand rebellion 2 weeks before it happened!!!!!

All these show the character of Kronstand.
Now for a better analysis see what others wrote about it . (In order to have both sides of the coin because it seems that you've got only the anarchist side!)

By John Wright http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/wright/1938/02/kronstadt.htm

By Trotsky http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1921/military/ch61.htm

By Lenin http://www.marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/15.htm

By Trotsky http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm



I am certain that you will not read everything from these links. But I reccomend that you read some.


Comradely,

OI OI OI

[gla22]

thanks a bunch OI OI OI. it is nice to get both sides of the picture. i had just finished reading No Gods, No Masters so i was full of Anarchist propaganda.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Paul avrich was not an anarchist OI. He was a historian of anarchism, not an anarchist. Kronstadt was supported overwhelmingly by the soldiers of the base, revolutionary, proletarian soldiers, who only a few years earlier had fought valiantly for the revolution. And the whole of Petrograd, the city nearest to Kronstadt, was out on a near general strike for similar demands.

[OI OI OI]

Paul avrich was not an anarchist OI.

Sorry my mistake. I knew he was a historian of anarchism but I thought that he was an anarchist also. I apologize. That doesn't change the fact though that he was sympathetic towards anarchists and anarchism


Kronstadt was supported overwhelmingly by the soldiers of the base, revolutionary, proletarian soldiers, who only a few years earlier had fought valiantly for the revolution.

Actualy the majority of the rank-and-file there were ex-whites and petty bourgeois peasants who sudenly got "converted to communism".
They went where the power was . They had no ideology.
The communists inside Kronstadt were arrested and excecuted by the insurgents.
There were "rumours" spread by the organizers of this insurgency that workers were killed in Petrograd by the Bolsheviks etc. That stirred up the emotion of the people in the base(most petty bourgeois) , who did not try to validate the rumours(which were not true by the way) and started arresting and killing communists, including a 17 year old "kid" who just asked why do the leaders of the insurection get bigger rations of food !!!

The nature of the Kronstadt uprising was counter-revolutionary and as Paul Avrich said it would have ment the defeat of the workers and the whites winning.


And the whole of Petrograd, the city nearest to Kronstadt, was out on a near general strike for similar demands.


That's a myth or better said something so highly exaggerated which became distorted and therefore a lie!

Joe Hill's Gost I suggest that you read more on Kronstadt because you are very far from the truth. You are repeating bourgeois propaganda .(And no, not everything is bourgeois propaganda , but what the anarchists say about Kronstadt and Ukraine is!)

I also don't think that you even tried to complete reading my three posts.
not that I think that they are so good that EVERYONE must read them but if you want to have a debate then you should read them and answer.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Sorry my mistake. I knew he was a historian of anarchism but I thought that he was an anarchist also. I apologize. That doesn't change the fact though that he was sympathetic towards anarchists and anarchism Yup, I hear he was a sweet guy.





The nature of the Kronstadt uprising was counter-revolutionary and as Paul Avrich said it would have ment the defeat of the workers and the whites winning. I will dissect your points bit by bit, using our mutual friend Paul Avirch. But before we do that, let us first address this "Avrich supported the repression of Kronstadt" nonsense. He did not. Your quote of Avrich is not a quote at all. If you were reading that article a little better you would see that.


Avrich argues that if the rebellion had lasted much longer, it would have encouraged the counter-revolution to resume its attacks.

IMT dude here is paraphrasing Avrich, and the nasty little thing about paraphrasing is that you can make shit up. We know IMT dude is making shit up because the Avrich quotes from preceding paragraph are deliberately taken out of context. When IMT dude says this


There is also a striking proof that the uprising would open the door to an external intervention. Paul Avrich produces a ‘Memorandum’ document that he discovered in the Archives of the Russian National Committee, in which we read: “there was no time to put these plans into effect. The eruption occurred too soon, several weeks before the conditions of the plot – the melting of the ice, the creation of a supply line, the securing of French support, and the transportation of Wrangel’s scattered army to nearby staging area – could be fulfilled.”

He fails to mention that the plans Avrich is referring to, are the plans detailed in the “White Memo”. Avrich analyzed the memo, which supposedly proved that this was a white plot, and he figured it was bullshit. He realized this because the Kronstadt revolt was so poorly planed that it had to be spontaneous!


Nothing has come to light to show that the Secret Memorandum was ever put into practice or that any links had existed between the emigres and the sailors before the revolt. On the contrary, the rising bore the earmarks of spontaneity... there was little in the behaviour of the rebels to suggest any careful advance preparation. Had there been a prearranged plan, surely the sailors would have waited a few weeks longer for the ice to melt... The rebels, moreover, allowed Kalinin [a leading Communist] to return to Petrograd, though he would have made a valuable hostage. Further, no attempt was made to take the offensive... Significant too, is the large number of Communists who took part in the movement...
The Sailors needed no outside encouragement to raise the banner of insurrection. . . Kronstadt was clearly ripe for a rebellion. What set it off were not the machinations of emigre conspirators and foreign intelligence agents but the wave of peasant risings throughout the country and the labour disturbances in neighbouring Petorgrad. And as the revolt unfolded, it followed the pattern of earlier outbursts against the central government from 1905 through the Civil War." [Op. Cit., pp. 111-2]


So to sum up, Paul Avrich never said these things. Your IMT comrade decided to write a very dishonest article in order to slander the Kronstadt sailors and guard against his detractors with support from a non Trot source.

Now lets move on to your assertions.



Actualy the majority of the rank-and-file there were ex-whites and petty bourgeois peasants who sudenly got "converted to communism".
They went where the power was . They had no ideology.
The communists inside Kronstadt were arrested and excecuted by the insurgents.
There were "rumours" spread by the organizers of this insurgency that workers were killed in Petrograd by the Bolsheviks etc. That stirred up the emotion of the people in the base(most petty bourgeois) , who did not try to validate the rumours(which were not true by the way) and started arresting and killing communists, including a 17 year old "kid" who just asked why do the leaders of the insurection get bigger rations of food !!!
Now there is plenty of scholarly evidence that shows the revolutionary nature of the Kronstadt sailors. For example Isreal Getzler points out that:


hat the veteran politicized Red sailor still predominated at Kronstadt at the end of 1920 is borne out by the hard statistical data available regarding the crews of the two major battleships, the Petropavlovsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Petropavlovsk_%281914%29) and the Sevastopol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_%281911_ship%29), both renowned since 1917 for their revolutionary zeal and Bolshevik allegiance. Of 2,028 sailors whose years of enlistment are known, no less than 1,904 or 93.9% were recruited into the navy before and during the 1917 revolution, the largest group, 1,195, having joined in the years 1914-16 There wasn’t enough turnover to suggest a dilution of Kronstadt’s sailors. And don’t start slandering peasants. Peasants are often far just as, if not more, enthusiastic to join in on a revolution than industrial workers.

The communists inside Kronstadt were not arrested and executed. They were detained, and then released. In fact, Kalinin, a man who lived in Stalin’s good graces until his death in 1946, was arrested and then released. Kalinin was even allowed to speak against the rebels at several meetings of the Kronstadt soviet! Weren’t they nice!

Your last claim is rather silly. As our mutual friend Avrich said
Kronstadt was clearly ripe for a rebellion. What set it off were not the machinations of emigre conspirators and foreign intelligence agents but the wave of peasant risings throughout the country and the labour disturbances in neighbouring Petorgrad. Petrograd was put under martial law, because the Bolsheviks did not want the workers to support the uprising. There was widespread disillusionment with the Bolshevik policy of authoritarianism and hierarchy. Kronstadt just had a lot more guns.


That's a myth or better said something so highly exaggerated which became distorted and therefore a lie! I have already pointed out that this is pretty well established fact. Don’t be calling me a liar now.


Joe Hill's Gost I suggest that you read more on Kronstadt because you are very far from the truth. You are repeating bourgeois propaganda .(And no, not everything is bourgeois propaganda , but what the anarchists say about Kronstadt and Ukraine is!)

I also don't think that you even tried to complete reading my three posts.
not that I think that they are so good that EVERYONE must read them but if you want to have a debate then you should read them and answer. I am not going to respond to your 2 previous posts as they are not addressed to me and they’re long.

Please do not assert that I am repeating “bourgeois propaganda.” It is rather insulting. I have restrained from impinging on your character(just that Trot writer), and I expect you to do the same.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rofl, as devrim noted in the Kronstadt debate, the whole of petrograd was on bloody strike.

I have not seen that debate, but I have heard that claim before. I have never, though, seen any source claiming that the "whole" of Petrograd was on strike. I have seen sources claiming that the strike was limited and organized by the whites.

As for the Anarchists, it is obvious that we would disagree on which wing was the left and which was the right. So you would admit that you were dishonest to question that there was a divide in the Anarchist movement.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I have not seen that debate, but I have heard that claim before. I have never, though, seen any source claiming that the "whole" of Petrograd was on strike. I have seen sources claiming that the strike was limited and organized by the whites.

As for the Anarchists, it is obvious that we would disagree on which wing was the left and which was the right. So you would admit that you were dishonest to question that there was a divide in the Anarchist movement.

Your friend victor Serge said so claiming in Petrograd that “The strike had become almost general. Nobody even knew whether the street-cars would run.”

There is no left/right divide amongst anarchists. There are real anarchists and then there's Victor Serge, who really was never much of an anarchist.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Your friend victor Serge said so claiming in Petrograd that “The strike had become almost general. Nobody even knew whether the street-cars would run.”

There is no left/right divide amongst anarchists. There are real anarchists and then there's Victor Serge, who really was never much of an anarchist.
Sounds like buck passing to me, I think it's pretty obvious the links between petitebourgeois middle-class students and anarchism, as well as a tangible third-positionist stance.

And that's not even to get into there lumpenproletarial activities.

[Yehuda Stern]

Joe: Victor Serge isn't my friend, seeing as he has been dead for quite some time before I was born. But he is certainly an anarchist I value far more than all the little helpers of the whites, that you put on a pedestal, put together. And to claim that there is no left / right divide inside anarchism is ridiculous: that divide exists inside every political current, within every party, and even inside some factions of parties, in history.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Joe: Victor Serge isn't my friend, seeing as he has been dead for quite some time before I was born. But he is certainly an anarchist I value far more than all the little helpers of the whites, that you put on a pedestal, put together. And to claim that there is no left / right divide inside anarchism is ridiculous: that divide exists inside every political current, within every party, and even inside some factions of parties, in history.


Victor Serge wasn't really an anarchist. That's my point. He spent his anarchist days writing nihilist, egoist, nonsense about how sweet the bonnot gang was. This is why anarchists find it silly that leninists love to tout him about so much. It works for point scoring, but its not like he ever shared much of our views.

There is no left/right dichototmy. This left/right stuff requires a qualitative assessment to determine the leftness or rightness of some political current. Left and Right refer to values regarding the equality, and individual freedom. I don't see a yardstick with which to divide anarchists on these issues. Substantiate a yardstick and apply it to organized anarchism or stop making these claims.

[Trystan]

Trotsky was the model bureaucrat and he always emphasised the need to defend Mr. Stalin's USSR.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Trotsky was the model bureaucrat and he always emphasised the need to defend Mr. Stalin's USSR.
It's always the whiteguards and the class traitors who talk about 'bureaucracy'.

[gla22]

The problem the history is written by those with extraordinary bias so the truth is hidden. To make a fair judgment on Krondstandt is impossible.

[Yehuda Stern]

Joe, I don't see the need to stop making any claims. I just disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned, the left / right divide relates to how close a political current is to a revolutionary position. As far as I'm concerned, the Anarchists you approve of where whites in disguise, while Victor Serge was an honest Anarchist. I'm sure that that bugs you, seeing as you want to portray the Bolshevik revolution as a violent coup that oppressed all who didn't agree with its leadership, but it's still the truth.


To make a fair judgment on Krondstandt is impossible.

One can use that argument to say that any accurate historical judgment is impossible. Finding out the truth isn't easy - you have to read sources from all around and see what adds up and what doesn't.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Joe, I don't see the need to stop making any claims. I just disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned, the left / right divide relates to how close a political current is to a revolutionary position. As far as I'm concerned, the Anarchists you approve of where whites in disguise, while Victor Serge was an honest Anarchist. I'm sure that that bugs you, seeing as you want to portray the Bolshevik revolution as a violent coup that oppressed all who didn't agree with its leadership, but it's still the truth.



One can use that argument to say that any accurate historical judgment is impossible. Finding out the truth isn't easy - you have to read sources from all around and see what adds up and what doesn't.
As far as I am concerned anyone who shies away from the class struggle is on the same side as the bourgeois. What the Bolsheviks were engaged in was a proletarian revolution. I honestly couldn't care less for the liberal garbage you spew Yehuda.

[Yehuda Stern]

Do you even understand English?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You two sectarians - one Trotskyist and one Stalinist (but both on different sides of the same REVISIONIST coin) - complement each other. :p

[Dros]

:lol:

Jacob, I wonder if you know what "revisionist" even means!

According to you everyone who's not a "Leninist Marxist"/"Revolutionary Marxist" (whatever those things are) seems to be a revisionist!
:lol:

But I jest. Again.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-challenges-overcoming-t74557/index.html).

[Trystan]

It's always the whiteguards and the class traitors who talk about 'bureaucracy'.

Jesus Christ, did you happen to pass through a time warp? You sound as if you should be writing inflammatory articles for Pravda about Trots and anarchists in 1937.

[OI OI OI]

let us first address this "Avrich supported the repression of Kronstadt" nonsense.

You are paraphrasing me. I never said that he supported the supression of the rebellion I just said that even Avrich who was an anarchist sympathizer knew that if Kronstadt was left like that the forces of reaction would counter-attack.
So what I am trying to do is to show that even anarchist sympathizers knew what would happen if the Kronstadt rebellion was not supressed. That in no case means that they supported its supression.


, the Petropavlovsk (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Petropavlovsk_%281914%29) and the Sevastopol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_%281911_ship%29), both renowned since 1917 for their revolutionary zeal and Bolshevik allegiance. Of 2,028 sailors whose years of enlistment are known

The communists inside Kronstadt were not arrested and executed. They were detained, and then released.

Kind of conradictory no?

The revolutionary sailors of Kronstadt who were known for their allegiance to the Bolsheviks now arrest communists?
And not only arrest but excecute, as shown by the data collected. More than 200 communists were killed by the insurectionists before the repression.

IT is also obvious why Kalinin was not detained or excecuted.
He was a high-profile Bolshevik. Such move would mean a certain supresion of Kronstadt and the insurectionists knew that especialy during the negotiations.


There wasn’t enough turnover to suggest a dilution of Kronstadt’s sailors. And don’t start slandering peasants. Peasants are often far just as, if not more, enthusiastic to join in on a revolution than industrial workers.

No you are mistaken. The peasants were much more tied with the liberals and the petty bourgeois SR's than the Bolsheviks. Meaning that some of them played a counter revolutionary role especialy those who sided with Makhno and those who did not side with the left wing of the Sr's.
Also you have to understand that this is the case because the peasants did not have an advanced conciousnes like the workers in the cities and were certainly backwards in may cases . The peasants are just an auxiliary force in the revolution. The main force are the working class.

Also about Petrograd being under martial law don't forget that this was the period just after "war communism" so you are being rather dishonest by saying that the martial law was because of the workers being against the workers. It was just after the civil war for Marx's(:rolleyes:) sake!

Also we have to clarify that the negotiations were done by Zinoviev. I think that if Zinoviev was not an incompetent comitee man there would be an agreement with the rank and file of the sailors. But certainly not the officers as they were motivated for other reasons.

I believe that Kronstadt had to be supressed immediately because if not the forces of reaction would have attacked and then huge sufferings would come about for the Soviet proletariat if defeated. Even worse than Stalin's purges!

So why would anyone support Trotsky? Because he once again saved the revolution.


PS: I am sorry for saying that you are repeating bourgeois propaganda.
It is rather counter-productive to slander other people in this forum and I deeply apologize to you and the other members of the forum. I should not promote such behavious as I am striving to be a serious poster and give a good example.
My apologies.

[Dros]

^^^ Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-challenges-overcoming-t74557/index.html).

I know Jacob I'm just messing with you.;):D

[Hawk_]

I support Trotsky exactly because he did all he had to do to save the revolution from the sabotage of the right-wing of Anarchism. What Makhno set up in the Ukraine was a Stalinist regime years before Stalin. Like a friend of mine once said on another Anarchist hangup: "the real heroes of Kronstadt are Lenin and Trotsky."
I stopped reading after "Right winged anarchism."

[Yehuda Stern]

You two sectarians - one Trotskyist and one Stalinist (but both on different sides of the same REVISIONIST coin) - complement each other.


I stopped reading after "Right winged anarchism."

Am I supposed to care? (Those quotes aren't by the same person but the appropriate response is identical)

[Devrim]

The revolutionary sailors of Kronstadt who were known for their allegiance to the Bolsheviks now arrest communists?
And not only arrest but excecute, as shown by the data collected. More than 200 communists were killed by the insurectionists before the repression.


Please provide a source.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Joe: Victor Serge isn't my friend, seeing as he has been dead for quite some time before I was born. But he is certainly an anarchist I value far more than all the little helpers of the whites, that you put on a pedestal, put together. And to claim that there is no left / right divide inside anarchism is ridiculous: that divide exists inside every political current, within every party, and even inside some factions of parties, in history.

Serge was later a member of the left opposition widely respected for his honesty including by Trotsky. He had been an an anarchist in his youth, but at the time of Krondstadt was a Bolshevik.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Actualy the majority of the rank-and-file there were ex-whites and petty bourgeois peasants who sudenly got "converted to communism".

Actually the majority of them very what had earlier been called the vanguard of the revolution.


The political past of the presindent of the "revolutionary comitee" of Kronstand was originaly a "Bolshevik" which tried to go over to the whites when things went bad for the Bolsheviks.

Proof, please. Many of the rebels were ex-Bolsheviks. Most of the members in the fleet left.


435 000 Francs were raised by the French bourgeoisie to help the insurectionists of Kronstand!

The bourgeois raised money on all sorts of hopes in Russia. Was any given to the Kronstadt rebels?


A new York paper had the news about the Kronstand rebellion 2 weeks before it happened!!!!!

The bourgeois press had news of rebellions in various parts of Russia all the time.

Thread on Kronstadt:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kronstadt-t80959/index.html

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

He had been an an anarchist in his youth, but at the time of Krondstadt was a Bolshevik.

I think it's easy to see - Trotsky certainly argued that - that Serge never completely broke with Anarchism, though he came very close to Bolshevism.

[Devrim]

I think it's easy to see - Trotsky certainly argued that - that Serge never completely broke with Anarchism, though he came very close to Bolshevism.

Whatever Serge's politics, he was a member of the left opposition, and was regarded as a reliable witness.

Devrim

[OI OI OI]

I can respond to devrim only when I find out how I upload pdf files on revleft because I need to include the proof that he needs therefore I will not respond now.

[Devrim]

Cut and paste from pdf.

Devrim

[OI OI OI]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OI OI OI http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1198700#post1198700)
The revolutionary sailors of Kronstadt who were known for their allegiance to the Bolsheviks now arrest communists?
And not only arrest but excecute, as shown by the data collected. More than 200 communists were killed by the insurectionists before the repression.

Please provide a source.

Devrim

Can you make the killed arrested? :lol: sorry my bad :(


Actually the majority of them very what had earlier been called the vanguard of the revolution

The composition of the sailors in Kronstadt was different than that of 1917 .
Even their leader was a descendant of peasantd called Stepan Petrichenko(which was an anarchist sympathizer of Makhno also) who admitted that many of the sailors were newly recruited peasants and that they had a sympathy for the Makhnovists which I have proved in an earlier post how there is no need for sympathy for the Makhnovists .


Proof, please.

Unfortunately I can't find it on the internet I will try

Many of the rebels were ex-Bolsheviks. Most of the members in the fleet left.
Everyone was a Bolshevik after the revolution


The bourgeois raised money on all sorts of hopes in Russia. Was any given to the Kronstadt rebels?

The fact that they raised money for Krostadt is more than enough to prove how Kronstadt would be the beggining of the counter-offensive of the forces of the reaction. If Kronstadt was left like that then when the ice melted all the reactionaries would have captured Kronstadt and then Petrograd. That being said the rank and file probably would be against the forces of reaction. I am not sure about its leadership though. So either way the rebells of Kronstadt would be supressed one way or another. Fortunately it was the Bolsheviks or else Petrograd would be in great danger so would be the revolution .

[Yehuda Stern]

Whatever Serge's politics, he was a member of the left opposition, and was regarded as a reliable witness.Nope:


Victor Serge’s conclusions on this score – from third hand – have no value in my eyes.
~ More on the Suppression of Kronstadt


Victor Serge, who, it would seem, is trying to manufacture a sort of synthesis of anarchism, POUMism, and Marxism, has intervened very unfortunately in the polemic about Kronstadt
~ Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt.

[Devrim]

Can you make the killed arrested? :lol: sorry my bad :(

That is a pretty shocking error. Never the less, I would like to see proof. All the evidence I have ever seen indicates that there were only a handful of arrests, all of whom were well treated, and all of whom were quickly released.


The composition of the sailors in Kronstadt was different than that of 1917 . Getzler with accesses to Soviet military sources disagrees.


“... that the veteran politicized Red sailor still predominated at Kronstadt at the end of 1920 is borne out by the hard statistical data available regarding the crews of the two major battleships, the Petropavlovsk and the Sevastopol, both renowned since 1917 for their revolutionary zeal and Bolshevik allegiance. Of 2,028 sailors whose years of enlistment are known, no less than 1,904 or 93.9% were recruited into the navy before and during the 1917 revolution, the largest group, 1,195, having joined in the years 1914-16. Only some 137 sailors or 6.8% were recruited in the years 1918-21, including three who were conscripted in 1921, and they were the only ones who had not been there during the 1917 revolution. As for the sailors of the Baltic Fleet in general (and that included the Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol), of those serving on 1 January 1921 at least 75.5% are likely to have been drafted into the fleet before 1918. Over 80% were drawn from Great Russian areas (mainly central Russia and the Volga area), some 10% from the Ukraine, and 9% from Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland.
...
Nor, as has so often been claimed, did new recruits, some 400 of whom Yasinsky had interviewed, arrive in numbers large enough to dilute or even 'demoralize' Kronstadt's Red sailors. As Evan Mawdsley has found, 'only 1,313 of a planned total of 10,384 recruits had arrived' by 1 December 1920 and even they seem to have been stationed in the barracks of the Second Baltic Crew in Petrograd.”


Even their leader was a descendant of peasantd called Stepan PetrichenkoI would imagine that all proletarians in Russia were descended (quite recently) from peasants. Petrichenko was a metal worker.


The fact that they raised money for Krostadt is more than enough to prove how Kronstadt would be the beggining of the counter-offensive of the forces of the reaction. If Kronstadt was left like that then when the ice melted all the reactionaries would have captured Kronstadt and then Petrograd. That being said the rank and file probably would be against the forces of reaction. I am not sure about its leadership though. So either way the rebells of Kronstadt would be supressed one way or another. Fortunately it was the Bolsheviks or else Petrograd would be in great danger so would be the revolution .Idle speculation.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What are you disputing, Yehuda? Many people including Trotsky had doubts about Serge's politics. That wasn't my point though.

I said:
Whatever Serge's politics, he was a member of the left opposition, and was regarded as a reliable witness.

He was a member of the left opposition, and was regarded as reliable as a witness.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You are paraphrasing me. I never said that he supported the supression of the rebellion I just said that even Avrich who was an anarchist sympathizer knew that if Kronstadt was left like that the forces of reaction would counter-attack.
So what I am trying to do is to show that even anarchist sympathizers knew what would happen if the Kronstadt rebellion was not supressed. That in no case means that they supported its suppression.

As I have already demonstrated Avrich sincerely believed that the repression at Kronstadt was unnecessary and supported the actions of the sailors. I have debunked your only evidence to the contrary.


Kind of conradictory no?

The revolutionary sailors of Kronstadt who were known for their allegiance to the Bolsheviks now arrest communists?
And not only arrest but excecute, as shown by the data collected. More than 200 communists were killed by the insurectionists before the repression.

IT is also obvious why Kalinin was not detained or excecuted.
He was a high-profile Bolshevik. Such move would mean a certain supresion of Kronstadt and the insurectionists knew that especialy during the negotiations.

The sailors of kronstadt believed in the initial revolutionary upsurge around the bolsheviks, a revolution based on the power of the soviets. When the Bolsheviks began to accumulate power onto themselves and destroy the autonomy of the soviets, they changed allegiance.

You have already admitted that your evidence of executions does not exist. But at least provide evidence of arrests. The sailors didn’t even bother to keep Kalinin. Who would have made a very useful hostage to the sailors.


No you are mistaken. The peasants were much more tied with the liberals and the petty bourgeois SR's than the Bolsheviks. Meaning that some of them played a counter revolutionary role especialy those who sided with Makhno and those who did not side with the left wing of the Sr's.

This is silly. Mahkno was no reactionary, you must provide evidence for these sorts of claims.


Also you have to understand that this is the case because the peasants did not have an advanced conciousnes like the workers in the cities and were certainly backwards in may cases . The peasants are just an auxiliary force in the revolution. The main force are the working class.

History does not necessarily agree. Poor agricultural workers, either landless or nearly landless often are quite enthusiastic revolutionaries. Zapata’s Army of the south was comprised primarily of peasants. During the Spanish revolution agricultural collectivization was robust and widespread throughout Aragon. The RIAU hled numerous peasants. The list goes on.


Also about Petrograd being under martial law don't forget that this was the period just after "war communism" so you are being rather dishonest by saying that the martial law was because of the workers being against the workers. It was just after the civil war for Marx's sake!

Martial law implies the suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of military law. If a “revolutionary” major city must operate under martial law for prolonged periods, then there is little revolutionary going on.


I believe that Kronstadt had to be supressed immediately because if not the forces of reaction would have attacked and then huge sufferings would come about for the Soviet proletariat if defeated. Even worse than Stalin's purges!

So why would anyone support Trotsky? Because he once again saved the revolution.

Stalin’s reign was a pretty brutal time. There’s no real evidence to suggest that the rising at Kronstadt would have lead to misery equivalent to Stalin. This is hyperbolic speculation.

[Yehuda Stern]

He was a member of the left opposition, and was regarded as reliable as a witness.

Yes, he was a member of the left opposition, and no, he was not regarded as a reliable witness, as the quotes show. I can hardly make this 'point' clearer.

[Devrim]

no, he was not regarded as a reliable witness, as the quotes show. I can hardly make this 'point' clearer.

The quotes question Serge's political judgement, not his testimony as a witness. In fact though his political judgement wasn't questioned until the disputes with Trotsky in the 1930s.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

To me, saying that a person's judgment has no value in your eyes means he's not a reliable witness.

[OI OI OI]

As I have already demonstrated Avrich sincerely believed that the repression at Kronstadt was unnecessary and supported the actions of the sailors. I have debunked your only evidence to the contrary.

No you have not! I never said that Avritch was not on the side of the sailors. On the contrary the fact that he was and that he said that it would reinforce indirectly the forces of reaction (while he supported the sailors) is striking evidence that if not supressed the Kronstadt rebellion would have been proved catastrophic for the revolution.


This is silly. Mahkno was no reactionary, you must provide evidence for these sorts of claims.

It is not silly. I will not repeat what I said on my first post. If you want to know why Makhno was a reactionary petty bourgeois read my post. If you don't want to know then fine. But don't call my claims silly without knowing the reasoning behind them.


History does not necessarily agree. Poor agricultural workers, either landless or nearly landless often are quite enthusiastic revolutionaries. Zapata’s Army of the south was comprised primarily of peasants. During the Spanish revolution agricultural collectivization was robust and widespread throughout Aragon. The RIAU hled numerous peasants. The list goes on.

I didn't mean that peasants are not revolutionary. But the main force has to be the proletariat. The peasants(petty bourgeois) for a big number of reasons are only auxiliary forces. That's one of the reasons why I think that anarchism (for its most variations NOT ALL) is petty bourgeois. For the simple reason that it negates the central role that the proletariat has to play in every revolution.


Martial law implies the suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of military law. If a “revolutionary” major city must operate under martial law for prolonged periods, then there is little revolutionary going on.

War communism is not the same as martial law. I just used the wording you used for simplicity's sake(I will not do it again I promise). The policy of was communism was imperative for the struggle against the whites and the 21 invading imperialist armies. That's how the workers managed to defeat the storm of reaction. And of course once the civil war was over the whole policy had to remain (but relaxed on a very big scale) just in case of another storm of reaction. What the storm of reaction wanted was a point of support(direct or indirect) inside the workers state established by the revolutionaries. This indirect point of support was Kronstadt. The fact that the reactionaries supported the rebellion in their press and also by trying to help them financialy showed their great interest into attacking through Kronstadt once the ice had melted.

Of course some anarchists and lefts want to support the Kronstadt rebellion in order to show that the Bolsheviks were authoritarian and that Trotsky and Lenin were dictators and in general to erase the line between genuine Bolshevism and Stalinism. But not seing the clear picture and by not understanding what it is fighting for 3 years against the reaction and losing your comrades , friends and family from the war and not seing the immediate danger in Kronstadt where the imperialists were to attack(even English ships moved close to Kronstadt waiting for the ice to melt) then all those critics become simply a part of the reaction .



Stalin’s reign was a pretty brutal time. There’s no real evidence to suggest that the rising at Kronstadt would have lead to misery equivalent to Stalin. This is hyperbolic speculation.

No it is not speculation. The horor and terror followed the unsuccessull 1905 revolution was unparallel in History. Thousants of workers were slaughtered , millions were impoverished , millions were in the black lists so they were unemployed and transformed to wondering sick people wearing racks, millions of Jews were rendered homeless or killed by angry mobs (again the Jews were the scapegoats). As the Romans said "Vae victis" (woe to the vanquished) .

Now take this situation and take the situation in 1917 where the Czar was assasinated, the capitalists expropriated and the imperialists were in to this whole situation as well. What would the proletariat suffer? At least more than in 1905. Certainly not comparable to Stalin's reign which although brutal was nothing compared to the reign of the Czar .



That is a pretty shocking error. Never the less, I would like to see proof. All the evidence I have ever seen indicates that there were only a handful of arrests, all of whom were well treated, and all of whom were quickly released.

The were a couple of hundreds of arrests that is a well documented fact but it does not play a key role to the argument thus I will not spend my time searching for every little detail on google or in books ( I apologize but I am really busy with schoolwork , getting exploited by my fucking boss and organizational work) .



Idle speculation.

No , very logical concusion.

the facts are there

a) the bourgeoisie supports the Ronstadt rebellion and even tries to support it financialy
b) English ships were like voltures readdy to attack the corpse of Kronstadt
c) The civil war had just finished but the capitalists were not eager to leave their huge investments in Russia under workers control
d) The capitalists had a great fear at the Russian revolution(obviously)
e)Kronstadt was close to Petrograd. If Kronstadt fell the Petrograds fate would be in jeopardy.
f) IF Petrograd had fallen (centre of industry, capital) the workers would have been crushed.

this is not speculation my friend .




PS: It was nice debating with you. If you respond I might not respond for while because of all this load of work .
But I will eventualy.
Of course as responsible revlefters we should always debate on a comradely manner on even the touchiest issue. I have not managed to do so aand I deeply regret it.

[Devrim]

The were a couple of hundreds of arrests that is a well documented fact but it does not play a key role to the argument thus I will not spend my time searching for every little detail on google or in books ( I apologize but I am really busy with schoolwork , getting exploited by my fucking boss and organizational work) .

It is not a 'well documented fact'. In fact the majority of RCP(B) members supported the Soviet. In fact the Soviet printed their statements in its press. No more than a handful of officials were arrested then quickly released.

I wouldn't spend my time looking for it though if I were you because it isn't there.



Idle speculation. No , very logical concusion.

the facts are there

a) the bourgeoisie supports the Ronstadt rebellion and even tries to support it financialy
b) English ships were like voltures readdy to attack the corpse of Kronstadt
c) The civil war had just finished but the capitalists were not eager to leave their huge investments in Russia under workers control
d) The capitalists had a great fear at the Russian revolution(obviously)
e)Kronstadt was close to Petrograd. If Kronstadt fell the Petrograds fate would be in jeopardy.
f) IF Petrograd had fallen (centre of industry, capital) the workers would have been crushed.

this is not speculation my friend .

But again it is all speculation, where is the evidence that the Kronsdadt workers supported the whites, or even something that might imply that they might have supported the whites.

Devrim

[Hessian Peel]

I support Trotsky exactly because he did all he had to do to save the revolution from the sabotage of the right-wing of Anarchism. What Makhno set up in the Ukraine was a Stalinist regime years before Stalin. Like a friend of mine once said on another Anarchist hangup: "the real heroes of Kronstadt are Lenin and Trotsky."

Lord protect us. :rolleyes: